davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
GREENvILLE HERALD.

GREENYTLLE, TN, Aug 10 1857.
To the Editor Of the Gazette,
| send the following in answer to yours
Of 18th inst. 1t is as brief as could make
1t:
II PrChibitionists would accept the re-
suit OF the late election as settlement Of
the question Of constitutional prohibition
for the next ten or if.een We lrs, so far as
its adoption in TeXss is concerned, the
necessity for IN expression OF the party
on the subject would not be so apparent
But, ju5giug from the utterances Of their
leaders and some of their papers,
they do not propose to 50 con-
slider il. AS many Of them seem
Inclined TO continue the agitation Of the
question, which I consider unwise, IN
necessary, and certain 20 result IN more
or less injury to the Democratic party, l
think the next Democratic State CONVEX
ton should declare upon the question Of
state prohibition IN language So plain
that che who runs mey read" and com
prehend its meaning. Prohibition, &C
cording to my idea of Democracy, is
plainly un-Democratic, yet 30 man hes g
RICH. to read another out OF the party be
cause Of his vote for or against II.
Let the party express itself in It's plat
form, On the subject, and then those who
do not wish to be directed by 1t can read
themselves out, if it is their wish. The
Democratic party csrnOt afford to act
coWardly IN this matter. The issue will
have to be faced, and the sooner it Is met
and decided the better it will be for the
party. Judging by the recent vote do
not consider it necessary TO continue the
agitation of the question in order to
secure an expression from the next Dem
ocratic stste convention.
l. is the mission of the Dem
ocratic party in Texas, es elsewhere,
to perpetuate good government, to pro-
vide honest snd capable men to honestly
and efficiently administer its affairs SO %
to project the citizen il the pursuit Of
happiness and in the enjoyment OF life,
liberty and ali MS natural, God-given
rights, st the smallest possible cost. The
discussion and hnSl settlement ct the
prohibition question, great one to De
sure, by no means is the only foundation
for the existence CT this grand cid party,
nor is tue haal buri&! Of state c0nstiLU-
tional prohibition its only mission.
+. w. HARRIS.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
EDITORIAL OPINIONS.
Continual from Third Page.

ne agitation cease, the prohibition lead
ars must call off their forces. and make
an unconditional surrender and thereby
declare the question settled for good.
While tie Democracy of Texas has
other foundation for existence sad
mission in life than the discussion OF state
prohibition, yet, to our mind, prohibition
is SO utterly repuguant TO the fdnda-
mental principles of Democracy, and Is
SO nearly suhversive Of it's mission that
so long as it is live question demand
ing action on the part of the people, il is
the highest aud most imperative duty OF
Democracy to grspple it and throttle 1t
to death ere it opens the wey for deluge
of its species of legislation that will most
certainly overturn the liberties of the
people and convert our system OF repu5-
licsn government into centralized and
psternalized despotism, Prohibition, like
all questions OF religio-political nature,
viii not down - being let alone.
R E. YANTIs, Editor.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
wAxAHACHTK ENTERPRISE.

WANAHACHIE, TEN, Aug. 10, lse5.
To the Editor of the Gazette.
L think the large majority against state
prohibition has settled the question as
state Issue for number OF years, and |
deem it unwise and greatly detrimental
to the interests of Texas and the Demo
cratic party for either the pros or antis to
continue the agitation Of the question with
view OF making it test of party feslty
ia the next Democratic state convention.
While Texas Democrats are about equally
divided on prohibition, there are many
other vital principles and issues, state
and national, on Which they do agree,
and for the establishment end perpetua-
ton Of which tde country needs solid
and united Democracy. TO disrupt the
party on defeated issue would be worse
than folly. 1t would be suicide. In my
opinion, nearly all the Pros and the CON
sentative Ants will favor the policy
which entirely Ignores the prohibition
question in the next Democratic pri-
msries and state convention.
L. 4. YEAGER,
Editor Enterprise.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
ARILENE REPORTER.
AIRLINE, Ten, Aug. Il, i,

AIRLINE, Ten, Aug. Il, 1857.
10 the Editor OF the Gazette.
Replying to your favor of the 18th, per
nit me to answer es follows: To the
first inquiry: We think not. Prohibi-
tionists have not nor do they st the pres
ent time regard the question as having
anything TO do with the Democratic
party, or with the Republican party.
They so declared in their platform, to
which they strictly adhered through the
campaign; and while ProhIbtionists are
satisfied thst very large majority OF the
Democratic party supported the measure,
they should gracefully submit to the de-
feat, and SHOULD strive in future. as
in the past, 70 keep it out Of the Demo-
cratic party. If you viii call 10 mind the
acts and expressions Of the opposing
parties in the late contest, MIR. Editor,
you will see that every attempt TO drag
this Question into the party lines has
been made by that party opposing the
amendment, and any expressions coming
from pros since the election that could
be construed as favorlng making psrty
question Of il may he reckOped rs 2 re
sentiment Of some Of the blank cartridges
ti1ed by Mills, Clark and others since the
close Of tn campaign, in which they ia
innate thgt liquor plank will be placed
in the next platform, TO which al pros
must subscribe or walk the gang plank.
Prohibitioni5ts have their idea5 about
this question Gs they have about other
police questions that have been legisla1ed
upon from time to time 10 Texas, without
even causing ripple in patty waters;
and they do no want nor do they pro
pose to be prescribed ia their views on
any question OF w5'cG the Democratic
party has no jurisdiction. l believe l
speak the sentiments of 100000 simon
pure Democrats when | say the question
will not De submitted 80 the next Demo
cratic convention by ProhiOitionists.
Nor do Ibeliave the question will be sprung
by any one having tGe good of the party
at heart. Answering your second Inquiry
think 1t would be decidedly best for the
Democratic party, as whole, TO regard
the matter SIS an outside Issue,
aud leave it where i now stands. The
Democratic party Of Texas have other
matters Of grave importance which Will
engage its attention in the near future,
and it will be hazardous risk to resur-
rect this question, which has Just been
settled snd lug it into the next great
state and national contest. resssert the
belief that the question will not be
brought up by friends Of the Texas Dem
ocracy. ALE Il. n. ToLAR.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
GAINEsNILLK REGISTER.

Ii it were possible 10 stop the citation
OF the prohibition question entirely
think il would be well to consider it
settled. But | DO not think it possible
There seems 10 be desire on the part
of number OF snti-prohibition leaders
to ostracise those Democrats who led the
prohibition movement, in view Of which
it seems to me that the wisest thing for
the party to do is to meet the issue fairly
snd pronounce upon it decisiyely. A
large majority of the Pr0hibitiorists in
Texas are Democrats first and will yield
the one principle Of prohibition rather
thsn forsake the twenty great principles
of Democracy. II the Democratic con-
vention which will assemble next year
shall declare either that prohibition
is un-Democratic or that 1t
is not un-Dem6cratic' ithst will settle
the question so far as the party is con-
cerned. And what better time than next
year could be CHOSEN FOR settling the
vCxed question? When could 1t be done
With less danger? Tae Texas Democracy
is practically unit upon ali other sub
jeCta, and can speak now with far greater
safety than at some future time when
rscked by internal diSsensions concern
ing other questions of public policy.
an one OF those who believe in settling
an issue as soon IS presented, for the
sooner the fight is over the sooner the
wounds will heal. Yes, "the Democracy
of Texas has other fou ndation for exist
aaCe and mission in life than the discus
sion OF state prohibition" Therefore
the necessity that it dispose of toe prohi-
bition question as soon as possible. Until
this is done il will be q
coastsnt source of annoyance to the par
ty and standing menace to its safety ?
My idea is to make the question an issue
st the primaries, and then lei the conven-
ton speak plainly upon it. The struggle
Will be short, sharp and decisive; it will
leave some wounds, but their pain will
be quickly forgotten amid the excitement
and party patriotism kindled by the rs
tional contest, and those who suffer de-
feat in the convention will choke down
their disappointment, and shoulder 10
shoulder with their frsternsl opponents,
with locked shields and shining spears,
will proudly sweep on TO victory. The
feeling Of bitterness having been once
stifed will never reassert itself, the de-
cision Of the convention will be accepted
as final, and. prohibition will never again
appear as a disturbing element in the
councils of the party.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
TERRELL STAR.

Y,
To the Editor of the Gazette.
You ask me for my opinion of the pro-
priety Of the continual agitation Of pro-
hIbiti0n By Democrats in view Of the big
msjority which has lust been given
against the measure in Texas. We do not
believe it will be good policy for the sg-
itation TO be kept up with view OF
forcing either prohibition OF anti prohihi-
ton upon the conventions next year. II
will be foolish and Unwise tor either side
to try TO force the other to acquiesca il
the extreme views of the other. But the
two extremes should meet upon middle
ground AID harmonic upon high license
and quart law. We believe this can be
done snd would be far the most wise and
expedient course to adopt. We have 81
ways advocated high license, believing
such regulation would be the means OF
prohibiting great many saloons which
Can keep up under low license.
We believe:
l. That the whole people are supreme
and higher in authority in Texas than
even the Democratic party.
?. That since majority OF the whole
people of the state acting eech one for
themselves, without party Or religious
ties, or utilization to interfere, have de-
teated prohibition, we fell 10 comprehend
how sny Of the several political orgauIza-
lions can arrogste TO itself the exclusive
right to dictate the belief and action of
its individual membership in the future
s. In view of these facts we do not IN
derstand how any Of the political organi-
cations are going to make mans vote
on prohibition 9 test OF his DsrtV stand
ing. An analysis of the Democratic vote
will show that it is too evenly divided for
that party to spply the test.
In view OF all these things, Democrats
Will be wise il they drop the question
with its defeat and accept the vote Of Au-
gust as s settlement of the issue and 60
about remedying the evils Of the liquor
traffic by other means than prohibition.
AS question Of state policy prohibit
ton is settled and the Democratic party
in Texas has much else that ii can well
sfford to turn its attention ts. TIE prop
er disposition OF the public lands is so
important question to be considered.
Then public education is one of para
mount Importance, ard the Democrat
who can devise the best way OF dispensing
better education to the common people
will deserve more praise and do more
good than if be were TO harp for or agsinst
prohibition all his life, even though ne
should live to be as old as Methusaiah.
And next year when the name Of Dem
ocrat is presented before convention
the only question which should be consid-
cred is: Is he capable, is he honest:
0. B. CoLQUITT, Editor Star.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
TEXAREANA TIMES,

TESARKASA, TEN, Aug a, 1851.
To the Editor of the Gazette.
In reply to your query in regard to the
best policy for the Democratic party to
pursue on athe prohibition question,
would respectfully submit that do not
think it either wise or expedient for
either anti Democrats or pro Democrats
to continue the agitation of this subject
with view to making the opinions and
votes of the late canvass s "psrty test"
next year. do not think, however, that
it would be best for the Democratic party
as whole, to regard the mstter settled
and leave it where it now stands, mas
much as think it the duty of the Demo
cratic party of Texas to define itself
upon all questions affecting the public
veal. In nut shell my views on this
question are simply these: l an op-
posed to ostracistng or reading out any
Democrat who voted for prohibition IL
the lste election because the party Of this
state had never defined it.
self on tie question Of
Prohibition, ard the soyerei-LS
were LETT free and untrammeled to vote
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
pom the question as their Judgment die

upon the question as their judgment die
tated, without doing violence to the
Democratic party OF Texas. no mstter
which way they voted. Now, however,
the prohibs say they hsve"come to stay"
not prohibition is Democratic, think
the next Democratic platform should set
tie the matter By the insertion Of 8 plsnk,
either pro or anti. When this is done
the matter will be settled for all time TO
come, snd, in my opinion, it is the one
and only Wey to settle 1t.
B. NJ. NANDRRHURST,
Editor Daily Times.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
CALLAHAN COUNTY CLARENDON.
Editor Enterpr rise

BAIRD, ZEN, Aug. Il, 1857.
10 the Editor OF the Gazette.
As the question of prohibition was set
tied by the late election, we do not think
il eXpedient 10 agItste the mater longer.
We believe that 1t Will be detrimeRta! to
the Democratic party TO have the prohi-
bition question enter into politics during
the next campaign, anG hope that both
pro and anti Democrats will use their
best efforts to restore harmony il the
party. An attempt 10 put prohibition
or sn snti-prohi6ition plank in the Demo-
cratic plattorm at the next state conven-
tioC would have tendency to
disrupt the party, and for the sake of
harmony the question should not be
discussed. We do not think that
the political standing of any man should
be questioned because he voted for or
sgsinst the amendment, any more than
his vote on any other bipartisan ques-
tion-the other amendments, the hog
law, local option, the lease law, the gam
bling or pistol law. 1t was 8 matter of
privilege and should not be made test
of party fealty. Too many Democrats
voted for the amendment, and the party
would sufferatoo great loss to read them
out, and we are satisfied that the attempt
will not be made. Texas and Texas
Democracy, one and undivided. is our
motto. NJ II. ALLEN, Editor.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
DIR. " / S ERR I G.

TO sgitate the question with aEiew OF in
TT ucing it into the Democratic party as
q test of party feaIty for past or future
sc ion.
.. Strictly as party messures St ygGstas
be best unqaestionably To leave the Sub
ject wAere it is. The highest authority
in the party has declared that it was nor
partisan, and | see no good or sufficient
reason why at this day it should Re rugged
in IS an issue, unless to crafty the over
weening ambition Ct g few chronic Office
seekers and constitutional GemagOguzs
who have been repeatedly repudiated by
the people at the polls. But 10y this de
cisiOn, | would not be understood SIS &C
voc lting the abridgemeut OF 4 single
right OF sny man TO support or oppose
prohibition as state measure, or favor
such policy as would result through
legislative enactment, in placing the
whisky traffic under more stringent con-
troll, with the ultimate object in view CT
totally suppressing the licensed saloons.
Regarding the context OF your second
interr0gGtOry, | should indeed be loath
10 admit that the Democratic party had
no higher mission es an organization
than the discussion OF any one
single measure, no matter how profound
its importance or Wide-reaChing its in
! huences. 1t would mark its early disso-
luton. No political party caA exist IN
America upon single issue, and he1ce I
nave 10 fears that the prohibition or third
party will ever suppisnt the Democracy.
Other measur9s-the tariff, france, ci,i.
! service reform, education, immigration,
proper disposition OF our magnificent
public domain, and other questions of
vital importance 20 the nation and state
are living issues presented to the
| Democracy, which must be met sud
satisfactorily discussed before the
people, if Democratic supremacy is 10
m2intoin.
regard prohibition simply as an Incl
dental issue, upon which Democrats may
| honestly differ, without challenge either
| TO their individual ConscientiOusnes or
party allegiance.
| So believing, I have 70 hesitation in
returning most emphatic negative 10
your first interrogatOry. To your second
l would return equally as emphatic sn
affirmative.
To the suggested corollaTy, 1 would
emphasize with all the power OF utter
snce, it has, though not conceding that
the immense sdverse majority mas rele-
gated state prohibition) TO the rear for
many yesrs, if not forever"
NJ. c. HARRIS.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
AUSTIN DISPATCH.
AUSTIN. Tex. Aug. J

AUSTIN, Tex, Aug. -, ISL.
To the Editor OF the Gazette:
To your favor CT the 10th inst, permit
me to offer the accompanying answer az
an expression Of my individual views
l. 1t would require too much space for
limited newspaper article to enter in
e1tenso in reply, but I may briefly say
that if the principles of prohibition
were right previous to the election,
they cannot be wrong now. The mere
fact that the measure was defeated by a
majority of 10000 settles nothing beyond
the fact that majority of the voters of
Texas-not OF the Democratic party-sre
opposed at present to any change in the
organic law looking to the suppression of
the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors. Regarding the question as
purely moral in its aims and noE-partisan
in lis political effect, I can see no oljec :
ton to continuance of the agitetion bF
those who desire through legislative eG-ct,
ment 70 suppress the growing power fg
lie saloon e!e2eat. But co seri lssy
deem it unwise, ine2pedient and suicidal
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
MARSHALL TRI-wEEKLY HERALD.
J.. NJ. ' ASDRRHURST,
Editor Daily Times.

MARSHALL, Ten, Aug. a.
To the Editor of the Gazette.
Your favor of the 18TH received. In
reply: At the last state convention 90
attempt was made to commit the Demo-
cracY of Texas to the support 0! the pro-
hlbition idea. This effort WAS not sue
cessful. a plank was inserted declaring
that Democrat might vote for Local
option without affecting his party stand
ing. This was not an endorsement of the
principle, but al extension Of party len
iency, that many able Democrats thought
uuwise, among them Senator Richard
Coke, If we mistake not During the late
campaign certain Democrats declared
tneir belief thst standing npoH
this plank, they were eaSbled
to vote for the prohibition amendments
without violating their allegiance TO tI1sl
Democratic organization in Texas. Egg
had the hardwood 10 assert, and nSae
were able to maintain, that the prdhibi-
ton idea is compatible with the principles
OF the government supported by Demo
cracy from the organization Of the Union
to this time. While this is true, there is
no disposition to question the Democracy
OF any man on account OF 3
vote Tor the amendment. That is q
thing of the past. Party lines were not
drawn. Every concession has been made
TO Prohibition Democrats The question
Was allowed to come before the people
snd q free fight at the ballot permitted;
now, when there is well-orgsnized IA.
tioGal and state prohibition party, that II
bitterly hostile 10 ard neg!6Cts no Oppor-
tunitV TO denOunce the adherence OF the
the Democratic party to its ancient faith,
snd t3at is seeking 10 wean Democrats
from their allegiance in this state,
1t would be the height OF folly for the
party in Texas TO remain silent and, with
tied hands, permit sn aggressive enemy
to exert, uuoDpOsed, al OF his srts 10
bring about defeat and disiDtegration.
Every Democrat should be willing that
the next state convention reassert it's be-'
lief in'the pure creed OF the party of the
people, and place itself in line with the
national Democratic party. No good
Democrat (pTo or .snti) can consistently
seek to stife the voice OF his party. Pro
hioition cannot be recognized AID en-
grated. 1t must be declared against
Political peace and party safety densud
that this should be done Every true
Democrat, without reference 10 his
actions in the late campaign, can tsssr d
on such platform. for it will be truly
Democratic. Respectfully, y
+ Il, LoUGH9 RY,S
Editor Tri-Weekly HeralE
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
DECATUR POST.

DHCATUR, TEN. Aug. I6, IsS7.
TO the Editor of the Gazette
Prohibition as aIpolitical question isnot
6 plant OF recent growth, but ha. for
years been forging It's way to the front in
American olit!cs, and the recent cleo
ton which laid it away to rest under an
hundred thousand daisies will prove e..
much failure as bUrying process, as
did Messrs. Dohoney & Co.'S. failure last
year; In word "they do" s.y and have
said all slong, thst prohibitioniis here to
stay, and in proof OF this We have only to
refer to the fact, that when the prohibi-
ton amendment was submitted to the
people of Texss the party
came forth with IS little effort as
cid "Jolah'a G9ur-," IN aEnv with
banners, iuA fedayd eager for tie tTev,
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
SHERMAN SUNDAY HERALD.

To the Editor of the Gazette.

SHEHhAS, L EA.t aug 10 1881"
To the Editor of the Gazette.
In reply to yours OF the 18th inst, the
late election settled no party question.
The amendment was submitted to vote
Of the whole people, and by the whole
people WAS decided. II was not & party
Issue IN any sense. The Democratic
party should be content TO let the issue
remain where the people have placed it..
An effort by either pro or anti to make
prohibition test CT Democratic tealty
must inevitably result IN disruption
Clearly, further agitation by Democrats
amongst Democrats would oe unwlse and
impolitic. The party has other duties
before it and cannot afford to quarrel
over what l regard as az issue aside from
party politics. Prohibition past or il
the future as party test should be let
severely alone. Yours,
e. A. DICKERMAN,
Editor Sherman Herald.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24

Wssk luag splitting Of blood, con-
sum utissG aW andred aseetions, c9ged
'FithaBs Ply HciE1 AJetsss f'r trsAase,
ritltWo ssssnpAs,.sasE DIsAASsaRY
MEDICAL AssoCnf1oN, A94st u nj.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24

haywuUu, assIsunul.
CENTRAL SCHOOL.
w. P. Williams, principal; Miss Annie
Speer, assistant.
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24

against the sale oNEoQk water anu sun
dries dries by the de1g ages. The act of
1919 says the rug stles are exempt
from its S0ndislns' SO 4 as the sale of
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24

~
not Contain Ammonia, Lime or Alum. Sold
only II Cans.
PRICE BAKING POWDER co.
New York. Chicalo. ST. Louis,
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24

al and Mrs. Anne Peas,
ana Miss Emma Preston
Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-24
We have full supply, either at whole
sale or retail. Order early.

.sE.s FORT WORTH GROCER Co.